senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns filtered consultations but does not elaborate on side effects, destruction, or other behaviors. Adequate for a read-only query tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no filler. Efficiently communicates purpose and use case.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple query tool with good parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient. No output schema, but return format is implied by the tool's nature. Could mention that results are from the e-Cidadania platform.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool returns consultations with high agreement (>85%) and identifies consensus themes. Verb 'retorna' and resource 'consultas' with condition distinguish it from sibling 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for consensus identification but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like the polarized consultations tool. No direct guidance on when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.